Thursday, September 03, 2009

The recent legal action undertaken by a Saudi law firm against the publishers of the Turban Bomb cartoon prompted a lot of discussion about the audacity of Islamic demands on the infidel West and what might be an appropriate response.

Rather than simply react to the ostensible issue itself — in this case, the demand that newspapers apologize for their actions and promise never to publish a Motoon again — it’s important to look beneath the surface and examine what’s really going on here.

As I have said previously, this legal action is a probe. It serves several functions:

1.

It tests Western cultural defenses,

2.

It games our legal system in order to strain and weaken it, and

3.

It preoccupies public attention and ties up resources while other probes and more serious offensives are mounted on different fronts.

Every moment we spend being outraged or pointing out the vileness of Muslim behavior or demanding that our governments do something is wasted. All of these outcomes contribute to the success of the probe from the point of view of the prober. Anything that sucks up our time, energy, and financial resources is a winner from the point of view of Islam. Whether the incident is a bomb on a bus, a public conflict over the construction of a mosque, or a lawsuit against the publishers of a cartoon, our various responses have up until now served the interests of the expansion of radical Islam.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Let’s take a step back and look at the big picture.

I’ve been paying close attention to Islamic strategies and tactics for the past eight years, and blogging about them for the last five. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I can draw only one conclusion: Islam is winning.

Yes, we threw out Saddam and the Taliban, interrupted a lot of bomb plots, and killed a lot of high-ranking terrorists. Those are significant accomplishments, and not to be minimized.

But consider the enormous costs involved. For each major terrorist asset destroyed, how many millions of dollars did we spend? How many lives were lost, and how many of our people were maimed or wounded?

Our successes have been very expensive. They drained a lot of our blood and treasure, helped bring on the current recession, and drove up the price of oil so as to enrich the Islamic despotisms of the Middle East even further.

So how are we doing? What does the scorecard look like? Have we set the cause of radical Islam back significantly?

Let’s just look at a few of the major Islamic indicators:- - - - - - - - -For the first seven years after 9-11, an American president sucked up to “moderate” Muslims at every possible opportunity. Since he left the stage, his successor has sucked up to all the Muslims all of the time.

Score: Muslims 1, Kuffar 0.

In the years since Saudi and Egyptian radicals destroyed the World Trade Center, Egypt has received upwards of $20 billion in American aid, and the Saudis have strengthened their position as “friends of the United States” and recipients of our military hardware, all the while vacuuming up the wealth of the West in return for the oil they happen to be sitting on top of.

Score: Muslims 1, Kuffar 0.

Since the Twin Towers fell, untold numbers of new mosques — most financed by the Saudis and provisioned with the latest radical Wahhabist theological propaganda — have been built throughout the West. Innumerable prayer rooms, footbaths, halal markets, and Muslim community centers have been built in Western communities. Sharia-compliant finance — all but unheard of previously — has spread widely, and is generally trumpeted as a worthwhile alternative to the greedy usury of traditional capitalism. Public funding for “outreach” to Muslims has increased dramatically in many Western countries.

Score: Muslims 1, Kuffar 0.

On the legal front, during the years since September 11th, Muslims in a number of Western countries have gained the right wear the veil in public employment, schools, and other institutions. Courts have forced employers to grant Muslims special dispensation for their daily prayers. Municipalities have mandated separate recreational activities for men and women in their facilities at specific times. Entire school systems have gone over to a halal menu to forestall Muslim complaints. Parallel sharia legal systems, some of them having an official governmental stamp of approval, are adjudicating civil cases for Muslims. Muslims have earned special legal rights not to be offended, and non-Muslims have been obliged not to blaspheme the vile idols of Islam, at the risk of fines and imprisonment.

Score: Muslims 1, Kuffar 0.

While major Islamic violence has been forestalled by Western counterterrorism over the last eight years, low-grade Muslim violence has increased. The no-go zones in major cities have grown larger, and new ones have appeared. Attacks on persons and property have increased. More rapes of non-Muslim women by Muslims are committed. Muslims have learned that they can react violently to the smallest slight with virtual impunity.

Score: Muslims 1, Kuffar 0.

In 2001, Pakistan was the only Islamic country that possessed nuclear weapons. In 2009, Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear power, and several other Muslim countries are actively seeking to catch up with it. Before 9-11, Pakistan had nukes but they were under the tight control of a military dictatorship. Pakistan still has nukes, but its political system verges on anarchy, and the Taliban control a large swath of Pakistani territory. In 2001 Afghanis lived under sharia law administered by the Taliban. In 2009 Afghanis live under a slightly less stringent version of sharia administered by a corrupt government controlled by heroin warlords.

Score: Muslims 1, Kuffar 0.

Most importantly, elected and appointed officials throughout the Western world live in fear of adverse Muslim reactions. Many of them — especially the members of the Socialist parties — depend on an electoral margin provided by the Muslim sliver of the population, and will go to great lengths to attract and keep the Muslim vote. They are quite willing to accede to all the Muslim demands outlined above — and more — to keep their corrupt and privileged positions. They do their best to suppress any honest discussion of these issues by demonizing their opponents as “racists” and “Islamophobes”.

Score: Muslims 1, Kuffar 0.

Finally, in the years since September 11, 2001, the floodgates that allow in more and more of the immigrants who cause all of these problems remain open, and in some cases are open even wider. The European Union is actively planning to import fifty million more Africans in the next several decades, and European politicians are promoting an open-borders Mediterranean Union. In the last eight years both presidents of the United States have refused to enforce the country’s immigration laws or control the southern border, and both have supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. The current president stands poised to accomplish this aim.

Score: Muslims 1, Kuffar 0.

And what did we get during that time? Did we score at all?

We rolled into Baghdad and Kabul. We nailed Mohammed Atef and Abu Musab al Zarqawi. We nabbed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We captured several hundred terrorist prisoners, questioned them for a few years while they played racquetball and got fat on USDA Grade A halal food, and then let most of them go.

And we spent a bazillion dollars accomplishing all this, while the price of gasoline went up to $4 a gallon.

So who’s winning?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Islam’s continuing success can be attributed to a shrewd use of resources and personnel on a variety of fronts. Killing the kuffar is only one tactic among many, and today other methods are generally more effective. Except for terrorist acts and outright warfare, all of the radical Islamic offensives may be classified as probes.

They are not designed to attain outright victory. The goal is not to achieve their purported aims. If they manage to confuse the infidel, or demoralize him, or cause him great expense, or disrupt his normal life, or make him live in fear, then they have succeeded. If non-believers happen to be killed or wounded as well, that’s just an added bonus.

A probe tests the limits of what can be done to non-Muslims without provoking a violent or damaging response. Constant probing occurs at a relatively low level, and wears out the resistance of non-Muslims. The civil authorities in Western countries repeatedly give in to probes and allow incremental degrees of Islamization in the vain hope of stopping the steady drip-drip-drip of Islamic agitation. But the probes don’t stop; if Islam achieves marginal success in a probing action, then the pressure is increased at that point and new probes are launched. A successful push to permit the hijab in a courtroom is followed by a demand for the burqa. If an employer gives in and sets aside a prayer room, then foot baths are demanded.

Each probe pushes the boundaries of the Ummah a tiny bit further outwards. These are not physical boundaries, but legal, social, and cultural boundaries. Every small success makes the host country resemble Islam just a little bit more, and helps prepare the colonized victims by making them accustomed to the nature of the Islamic state.

Here’s a partial list of common probing activities. Readers will be able to add many more examples of their own:

Legal and Judicial

Demands to allow sharia law in civil cases

Insistence that police must follow Islamic practices (veils for the female cops, booties for the dogs) when carrying out their duties on Muslim turf

Outcries against “profiling” when Muslims are arrested

Charges of “discrimination” when offenders are convicted or sentenced

Insistence that all public institutions, including prisons, must meet Muslim standards for diet, religious observance, and other specific Islamic characteristics in their environment

Territorial

The establishment of Muslim-only neighborhoods, from which non-Muslims may be excluded and in which they must obey Islamic rules

The insistence that any area in which Muslims have prayed becomes sacred Muslim territory and may not revert to a previous use

The establishment of buildings specifically designed as mosques

The demand that minarets be allowed on mosques to mark the surrounding area as Muslim

An insistence that the call to prayer from loudspeakers be allowed at mosques

Educational

Demands that an Islamic curriculum be used for Muslim students

An attempt to veto any elements of teaching (the actual history of Islam, accounts of the Holocaust) that are problematic for Muslims

Moves to allow veils in the classroom

A push to segregate the sexes in certain activities

A demand that school schedules be adjusted to allow Muslim students to pray, and to accommodate Islamic holidays

Insistence that all food served in the school dining facilities be halal

Social

A requirement that public activities in which more than a certain percentage of Muslims participate be in accord with Islamic practices — veiling, prayers, segregation of the sexes, halal food, etc.

Demands that public space accommodate Muslim religious prohibitions, such as those against dogs or pigs — or even the depiction of dogs or pigs — or alcohol, or certain kinds of images and symbols such as crosses, etc.

The insistence that public or private employees be allowed to refuse to engage in certain activities, such as handling alcohol or pork or (for women) shaking hands with men

A policy that any public space used for Islamic activities — such as a non-denominational chapel at a university — must not display the symbols or offer the literature of any other religion at any time

Cultural

An insistence that non-Muslims display the same respect and reverence for Mohammed, the Koran, and Islamic symbols as do Muslims themselves

An assertion that “insults” to the Islamic religion are not protected by free speech laws, and in fact violate Muslims’ freedom of religion

Demands for legal redress when public entertainment or the private behavior of individuals offends Muslim religious sensibilities

A push to modify the legal code so that respect for Islam is mandated by law

Pressure on television and radio stations, newspapers, book publishers, art galleries, and so on to show “balance” by presenting more Muslim content and prohibiting content that violates Islamic standards

When one of the above probes finds a soft point where resistance is weak, then pressure is stepped up, and the “spontaneous” violence of the Muslim street may appear to help the infidels make the right decisions. If the probe continues to bear fruit, the situation may escalate to carefully modulated riots, arson, vandalism, and assaults. When the kuffar authorities finally yield — and allow the construction of a mosque, or fund a Muslim community center, or permit the burqa on public transport — then the entire playbook that generated the successful probe is replicated and used on another front.

This process is repeated over and over again, day after day, in thousands of cities and towns across the West. Resistance is eventually worn down, and demands acceded to. Not many of them, and not often, but once a demand has been granted, there is no return to the status quo ante.

The Islamic ratchet works in one direction only. Whether it is a military operation, a legal initiative, or a cultural program, once the probe succeeds, there is no reversing it.

This is how the Dar al-Islam expands, and Dar al-Harb dwindles.

When Islam could not hope to match the infidels militarily, it focused on terrorism. When that proved counterproductive, it tried different tactics. Probes are a continuation of terrorism by other means.

The military might of the United States and the other Western powers is of no use in the face of these tactics. All of the immense gains enjoyed by Islam during the last eight years continued unabated while coalition forces chased “terrorists” in Tora Bora or defused IEDs in Anbar Province. For all our successes on these fronts, we ceded massive amounts of territory to the enemy on all the other fronts, without even realizing that there was a battle or that we were losing it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Denmark, of course, is an exception to much of what I described above. Denmark has chosen to resist Islamization to a far greater degree than any other Western country.

So let’s return to the starting point of this post.

A Saudi law firm has demanded apologies, abasement, and reparations from Danish publishers because of the infamous Turban Bomb cartoon. What should the Danish response be?

Obviously, there should be no new “outreach” efforts aimed at the Danish Muslim community. No politician or public figure should announce an initiative to promote “respect for Islam”. These are the usual responses of cowardly Western leaders. Such behavior would immediately signal a notably successful probe.

And sending the Saudi lawyers packing after a stern judicial admonishment is not good enough. The Danish newspapers will by then have incurred substantial legal costs, and the time of judges, clerks, bailiffs, and innumerable government lawyers will have been consumed in pointless wrangling.

The only way to repel this probe successfully is to make it very, very expensive for the people who launched it. Only a painful result will discourage more of the same behavior later on, in other contexts.

Double indemnity is the only way to go. A finding against the plaintiffs with a levy of twice the court costs would send an unambiguous message and discourage further probing.

If you are Danish, please write your newspaper and your member of parliament and insist on this kind of response.

The Danes should hold fast, even if the Muslims burn cars in Nørrebro and embassies in Amman.

Fortunately for all of us, this latest probe was launched in the land of Holger Danske, and thus stands very little chance of succeeding.

38
comments:

Dear, Baron, regardless of any disputes we may have as to priorities in fighting Islam's incursions, this remains one of the very best articles ever to appear at Gates of Vienna.

Your essay outlines Islam's ever-expanding ideological balloon that the West so gingerly attempts to sit upon, only to see it swell into other less well-defended theaters.

What I feel to be of greatest importance is how you maintain a consistent and tight focus upon the way that Islam alone drives all of these encroachments upon Western civilization. For that you should receive the very highest praise. This notion falls into the timeless category of, "Keep your eyes on the prize".

Let their be no doubt that the spineless and treasonous politicians that you duly mention are beneath contempt, but few of them would have a functional vehicle (in the absence of totally discredited Communism), with which to attack modern Western civilization without the stalking horse of Islam.

You do all of us the most noble service by refusing to divert attention towards these maggot-riddled liberals and radical Leftist morons who think that their pet Muslim thugs will meekly retire from the arena once this existential battle has been fought.

Yes, the liberals are a toxic force from which all thinking individuals should shrink in disgust but the pending Civil War II™ that so many of this forum's commentors continue to predict is of little use if we have stupidly allowed the rarified radical fraction of Islamic jihadists to unleash nuclear terrorism upon the West in general and America in particular.

Islam's jihadist aristocracy must remain our primary objective. They are the hydra's heads that we CAN cut off. Moreover, remember that Jason killed the hydra by stabbing it in its heart and not by decapitating the beast. We can do the same by denuding Islam's jihadist aristocracy, even if it requires immolating Mecca and Medina.

Regardless, the Islamic hydra can and must be addressed first and foremost. It poses a certain and formidable danger in the form of nuclear terrorism that even the immense lunacy of Western liberals are largely unable to inflict upon our free nations.

Just one or a few nuclear terrorist attacks could see the West undergo an economic recession, or overall geopolitical retraction, that could leave the current battlefield of dar al harb uncluttered by a sufficiently potent foe which has the ability to defeat Islam's militants along with their deafeningly silent quorum of tacitly approving Muslims.

However dangerous our current crop of Liberal traitors may be, they cannot hold a candle to the very few psychotic Islamists that hope to inflict nuclear or WMD-type terrorism upon America and Europe.

Our immediate goal must be the eradication of these most perilous foes even as similarly imperative measures are taken against the perfidious Left.

Good summary of the war so far. Overall there is no doubt that Islam is winning on virtually all fronts. The front that is most important is the internal one. Muslim population growth coupled with immigration, is threatening the total destruction of the West.

For the last few years, the UN Secretary General has pleaded that Western countries take in even more refugees, pleading for compassion on the part of the West. Just a few days ago, the EU announced that EU countries should/must take in more people from war torn countries(for the most part Islamic), and poverty stricken countries (mostly Black African). As the EU elite is mostly Left and subscribes to the Utopian concept of One Worldism, they see no reason in principle why such a request cannot be complied with in full.

Now most people think of themselves as kind, good and compassionate,whether Christian or not. Any opposition to further immigration from Islamic countries can easily be quashed by appealing to the good and kind hearted nature of most Westerners. Those who disagree can be quashed as bigotted, phobic, racist or worse

How do we address this problem in the wider forum? The only way I see that we can get any traction, is to appeal to that very nature of compassion and kindness, by pointing out that large numbers of Muslims will eventually destroy the internal peace that the Western world has achieved, leading eventually to unnecessary bloodshed. Compassion, kindness and the wellbeing of all, including Muslims, requires therefore a severe limit on the numbers of Muslims.

People, though wishing to be seen be kind and compassionate, are also now aware that Islam poses a deadly threat. The problem is how to square the circle. The above approach immunises one from the charge of Islamophobia or Xenophobia, while appealing to the very same nature of people for justice, compassion and fairness. This may sound a cynical tactic, but not so, as it is an accurate and truthful measure of the history of Islam.

Incidentally, Muslims are launching a cartoon series along the lines of Captain Marvel, Superman etc. These Muslim superheroes will have some of the attributes of Allah, and will fight for justice and compassion. I believe most of their interventions will be required in the Infidel West. Let us wait and see. But whatever the approach, Muslims have realised how to get entry into the unprotected bosom of the West.

And the only logical conclusion after reading this perfectly correct description of the Islamic jihad against all things non-Islamic is to ban Islam outright thoughout the Western world. It is either that, or continue for the rest of our lives to battle against this nonsense. As far as I am concerned, we can spend our time more productively.

Baron: Your post is excellent and I agree with virtually every word of it. However, let us take another factor into consideration. What if the Western surrender is not just due to weakness, but due to the fact that Western elites are already in the process of breaking down ALL Western countries through mass immigration and Multiculturalism and view Islam as a useful ally in this enterprise?

The more I look into it, the more I take seriously the idea that all of this is done purposefully in order to break down all Western nation states and build a "global" state. In order to do so, white Westerners need to be crushed and subdued because we have this thing for independence and self-rule that is just unacceptable to those who would like to be our new masters. Exactly the same Multicultural lies in favor of mass immigration are repeated in every white majority Western country I have seen. This is not coincidental. It is planned and highly organized.

Anjem Choudary I expect most people have heard of his name, you know he is the one that MP's and the media will denounce as an Islamic extremist !!! or even a nutcase, or possibly, "He doesn't represent Islam".

Here are a few headlines Anjem Choudary has generated recently in the media.

RANTING hate preacher Anjem Choudary – the man behind the vile Luton protests – wants the flag of Allah to fly over Downing Street and ALL British women forced to wear a burka.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2318353.ece

And there are plenty more of his rants if you care to google for them.

Now here is the dilemma that should ring alarm bells, even in people that have no idea what Islam really is.

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ece

“Judge of the Sharia court of the UK Anjem Choudary says...

“We are free-of-charge to the Muslim community as a reference point in marriage, divorce, in partnership and company disputes, in inheritance matters, and for people who want to become Muslim, and general advice and rulings.

This is scary beyond any shadow of a doubt. reading Baron's article I get the assumption of already living in an established Eurabia and already having been reduced to dhimmi whether I like it or not and should just keep paying my jizya to the new masterrace and shut up or die. However, I'm pleased to see that Fjordman has joined the ranks of us Tin Foil Hats now and seems to drifting along with us in the belief of the NWO theory. I too cannot believe that it is mere coincidence that merely all westerna nations are collapsing at the same time and for the same reason. This must be orchestrated. We all know that Zenster has made a (s)hit-list of the mahoundian top brass. Maybe it is time for him or anyone else knowledgeable enough to make a similar hitlist but including all the western elites instead? And maybe we should take them out first before we engage in the mahoundian hitlist?

You wrote,"In the past eight years both presidents of the United States have refused to enforce the country's immigration laws or control the southern border.." is this a rhetorical flourish, or, is it reality?Any society that doesn't or can't control immigration will suffer the same fate as the Romans.

You have produced a very useful check list to measure a society's Islamisation,it should be published widely. We in the West should remember what "Dar al Harb"actually means and fight back.

No, it's not a rhetorical flourish. The Congress passed a law requiring the construction of a (partial) wall on the southern border. President Bush declined to execute it fully: only a small section had been built, the last I heard. Both presidents pushed for amnesty (by another name), and Obama is pushing harder for it than Bush did.

This summation of skirmishes, strategy and dismal score card by the Baron is the best I've seen, bar none.

Again, it should be placed on the site so it does not sink into oblivion but brings any new reader up to speed.

How to get it wider exposure? Takuan Seiyo's comment "In a sane world this should have been the lead editorial in the Washington Post" is correct. But of course we live in an Alice Through the Looking Glass warped liberal world or perhaps more accurately, Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 come to life. Out of all dysphoric or science fiction to come true, why those? We'd have a better chance of surviving bug eyed creatures from outer space than the one-two punch of medieval barbarians and the useful idiots of the Left.

An excellent article Baron and one I shall make use of when confronted with the blank stares of incomprehension or with piqued silence when I broach this topic. As Fjordman and others say, this probing and incursion seems to be a very concerted and worldwide effort. Here in the United States, the Islamification does not appear to be so far along, but I feel this is only because Christianity is very strong and openly practiced here that it tends to overshadow other belief systems. But reading between the lines and merely observing daily life one can see the incursion of Islam into cities, neighborhoods and culture.What concerns me is that the current US president, B.Obama has strong sympathies for Islam, not for spiritual but for political reasons; Islamic radicals detest America as much as he does, giving them support serves the same purpose as it does for Leftists in Europe and elsewhere : the enemy of my enemy is my friend . If this is the case, and listening to his sickening Ramadan speech pretty much confirms his toadying admiration for them, I wonder if the time may not come perhaps in a year or two if his popularity is reclaimed, that he might not announce that he is returning to Islam, the religion of his childhood. There could be millions who convert along with him. With his Statist system of choice in place, Marxism, Fascism or Islamism, with his civilian army formed, the media & internet taken over by the Executive Office, with the rest of the world becoming Dar al Islam, totalitarian rule would be pretty much inevitable. Incidentally his totalitarian takeover seems to be a goer whether Islam is along for the ride or not.We have to face up to this fight without the tolerance for an evil that will be our ruin. No-one, no human, no system or nation, not even any animal survives by tolerance because there are far too many for whom tolerance of ‘the other’ is a form of weakness, a failing, a disservice to ones society. Perhaps there is some truth in that belief. What I do know is that tolerating evil ensures its potential to prosper.

You have, once again, given an excellent summary of the problem. Far better, in fact, than your solution.

And once again, I find myself pleading for it to be the other way around. The extent of the problem is simple, at least for readers of this blog, but proposals aren’t although they are likely to have much more effect.

No comment has addressed your specific proposal.

I’ve never heard of “double indemnity costs”. The costs usually reserved for unreasonable behaviour are indemnity costs where the loser pays all, or almost all, the costs.

I don’t see a western government adopting double indemnity costs, and I don’t think it would have much effect:

First, awards of costs aren’t intended to reward, but to reimburse. I don’t think you would persuade lawmakers, via Law Commissions, papers and drafts.

Second, is it a special rule relating only to “Islamic Lawfare”? Or does it apply to any form of speculative litigation? If so, a lot of injury claimants will get hit. McDonald’s will have a new income stream! Mischievous claims get launched every day.

Third, beefing up free-speech defences in defamation law would cut such cases to summary judgement. Greater use of security for costs from speculative foreign litigants might give them pause. These are the kind of milk-and-water proposals put forward by journalists unwilling to admit the extent of the problem, and would allow governments to sidestep the issue of Islam.

The “double indemnity” effect on the Islamic victories you list is zero. US President sucking up to Islam? No effect. American aid to Egypt? No effect. New mosques in the West? No effect. Veils, prayer times, halal meat, swimming pools, sharia courts? No effect. Islamic nukes? No effect. Gutless politicians? No effect. Growth of Western and Islamic enclaves? No effect.

I finish with a Baron quote: “If “we” are the governments of the Western democracies, you can forget 99% of the ideas that are broached here. Ain’t gonna happen.”

I am starting to feel like an obsessive, not to say eccentric, pleading for people to focus on solutions rather than laments.

You are welcome to scold me for what must by now be so unwelcome and predictable a request. But please reflect first on whether this is really such a foolish plea?

Obviously ALLAH, that cunning devil, is taking over after the old and effete God the Father, who served as his model. If you want to hinder his predestined final MACHTÜBERNAHME, seizure of power, in the western world you presumably first of all have to take out his tenement.

I shouldn’t argue with you. All the evidence points to an inability or unwillingness on your part to concede any point which does not focus on the imminent collapse of the Western welfare state or insist that all efforts should be directed at the creation of privately-organized contractual arrangements among free people living without governments.

Your arguments have merit and are worth discussing. You may even be right.

But you also may not.

And if not many people share your vision of privately-contracted non-state successors to the Westphalian system we live under now, it won’t make any difference how perfect and rational your system is, since the remnants of the West will be overrun by the imperfect, irrational, and violent alternatives.

I choose to focus on attempting to deal with the system we have in front of us for several reasons.

One of them is very personal: if the advanced technological civilization we live in collapses, two people in my immediate family will die. They depend on the continuation of the sophisticated production and distribution system of medications and medical services, which will be one of the first casualties of any major disruption of our political economy. In fact, if Obamacare were fully enacted one of them will be unlikely to survive very long.

So although I fear a societal breakdown is coming, I focus my energies on preserving some patched-together version of Western civilization, as quixotic as that may be.

As to your objection that I am proposing a government-based operation, you are missing the point.

I am proposing a letter-writing campaign, to be launched by ordinary Danes. GoV has a large Danish readership, so it’s possible that my idea may have at least some effect.

If enough people do this, then there can conceivably be an effect on a governmental response. But changing the mindset of a lot of ordinary people is the point, because in the long run that is the only thing that will affect the behavior of governments.

The specific legal response is not germane for my purposes. I propose the clear expression of sentiment by a large number of people. Given enough popular pressure, the judicial and legislative powers will find a way to make those responsible for the probe pay a higher price than will the Danish newspapers and the civil authorities.

The “double indemnity” effect on the Islamic victories you list is zero.

My initiative is aimed at a single issue: Islamic lawfare:

It was not my intention to assert that this operation would have an effect on all the others. The whole point of probes is that they are specific to individual circumstances.

But we should always bear in mind what probes are. Instead of focusing our minds on the ostensible purpose of a demand, attack it at the root by making it – and all other probes – counterproductive and expensive.

We have many other tasks as well. But those can be covered in other posts.

I hope you will accept my sympathy for your close family’s health – it’s genuinely meant.

Baron: “All the evidence points to an inability or unwillingness on your part to concede any point which does not focus on the imminent collapse of the Western welfare state or insist that all efforts should be directed at the creation of privately-organized contractual arrangements among free people living without governments.”

This is a little unfair, since my comment didn’t mention my bigger-picture proposal.

My concern is that the double-indemnity measure you propose (“Double indemnity is the only way to go.”) is unlikely to be adopted, or to be effective if it were. Unlike your description of the problem, which was excellent and much better considered.

And, therefore, to plead for more effort to be put into considering solutions than describing the problem, rather than the other way around. That’s “solutions”, not “my solution”. I realise that others’ ideas will be different to mine.

I freely admit that my proposal could be wrong. And that democracy may survive for centuries in the west, although I don’t see how. And I would love to see other proposals that might work, given what we both seem to apprehend down the road. People don’t have to agree with my proposal, but it is dangerous to decry the situation without considering solutions – and no other blogs seem to be considering them.

I would be personally content for social democracy to continue indefinitely. Whilst I think it is unsustainable and gradually dystopic, it has been OK to me over the years, I can escape the worst problems, and it generally leaves me responsible for my own contentment. Unlike, say, Stalinism.

Baron: “So although I fear a societal breakdown is coming, I focus my energies on preserving some patched-together version of Western civilization, as quixotic as that may be.”

This is my aim too. To create a beneficial virus which can contain the values of civilisation, and re-grow amid the ruin. I ventured to question whether your proposal would have this hoped-for effect.

My concern is that the double-indemnity measure you propose (“Double indemnity is the only way to go.”) is unlikely to be adopted, or to be effective if it were.

Unfortunately, I don’t seem to be making myself clear.

For the purposes of a concise argument, I proposed “double indemnity”. That was simply a way to suggest that Danes push at the grassroots level to make lawfare probes more expensive than the amount of simple court costs.

I’m totally ignorant of Danish law, so I have no idea of the specifics that might be involved.

However, I’m certain of one thing: in any country where democracy still functions, if popular sentiment becomes strong enough, governments can always find a way of carrying out the expressed will of their people, whether by legislative action, judicial rulings, or executive order.

For the purposes of effective argument and clear rhetoric, I expressed this as “double indemnity”. Obviously I have no stake in the specifics, as long as it has the intended effect.

Just thinking about the WaPo comment - while they'd never touch it...it might not hurt to try something like "The Washington Times" - they did publish Pamela Gellar's Rifqa editorial a few days ago - and you'd still hit a LOT of readers.

Alternatively there are media sources like "The Washington Examiner" that I link to from time to time - but I think this would go past their max word count. Not sure how many hits WND gets daily, but I also read an article a few days ago stating that JPost is the largest Jewish news source in the US and gets more hits than all others combined - although you'd really be preaching to the choir with them - more readers is always a good thing.

Hah! If our survival depends on my generation, then good luck to us, because we're going to need it. Unless people my age change radically in coming years, we certainly won't survive. Yes, there are people my age who are aware and get what's going on, but they're the exception, not the rule.

Sorry to have such a dismal view, but I have a rather cynical view of my age group. And of humanity in general, to tell the truth.

Still though, on a brighter note, I really don't believe it's too late for us. I think we can survive. But people must be willing to struggle, which they're not right now (and which is why a radical change in people's views needs to happen).

Baron's concept of constant "probes" intended to wear down Western resistance and corrode Western institutions to make way for gradual establishment of the Islamic ethos, culture and Sharia is excellent, though I think the workings of those probes are in some ways more "viral" than intentional.

Conceptualizing as "probes" Islamic behavior toward the West and Western institutions cuts through the fog those probes are camouflaged in. Muslims, in bringing lawsuits intended to impose Islamic values, present those lawsuits as intended only to enforce civil rights and other Western and American-as-apple-pie values. By calling Islam-inspired lawsuits probes, BB makes clear that, far from actually seeking to participate in American values and the American system, what many Muslims are doing is as external and alien and non-participatory as a probe. The Muslim pretense to be out to protect their own civil rights is often nothing more than manipulation.

But I don't think it's quite as conscious as BB seems to think. I think Islamic culture is to some extent propagating itself through Muslims, and Muslims are, to a degree, mindlessly following patterns established by Muhammad and early followers.

I didn’t say probes were conscious, and a lot of the times they probably atren’t. But they are intentional. Humans can act unconsciously but intentionally.

The collective effect comes from a shared ideology, They don’t need to be told to do these things, and they don’t need to think about them particularly. It’s all part of the Islamic package taken in with their mothers’ milk, and is as natural as breathing.

Western Europe is threatened by a Muslim invasion. Muslims come here, give birth to many children and take over Western societies from within. Europe will become undemocratic, anti-American and anti-Semitic. Christians and Jews will be oppressed.

That is the real purport of the EURABIA-theory, which became popular in the U.S. after 9/11.

- The whole idea of EURABIA is a conspiracy theory, there is no doubt about it.

- It is not at all very credible, says Islamologist Jonas Otterbeck, active at the Lund University as well as at the Malmö University [south Sweden].

He compares the EURABIA-theory with old anti-Semitic notions of secret Jewish power networks.

- There are EURABIA-books in which Arab ownerships in Europe are listed. - That Muslims owns department stores in London, for example. - The whole idea is so insanely baroque. - An Arab unified network that wants to take over Europe? - When Arab states does not even manage to keep good terms with each other?

In Sweden, no political party seriously has tried to win followers by stirring up fear of EURABIA -- until now. - I'm worried about EURABIA, says Kent Ekeroth, International Secretary of the Sweden Democrats.

- Many Muslims are living in Malmö. What is the problem with that?

- A major problem is the growing violence. In Rosengård, in the streets and squares, in nightclubs.

- What has violence got to do with Islam?

- Often, the violence follows in the wake of Islam. Then there are other things, pork is banned at certain schools. Then I believe many see it as insecure that the city is changing and increasingly is resembling the Arab world, "says Kent Ekeroth.

In Denmark, fear of EURABIA is politically marketable. Islamologist Jonas Otterbeck is not sure of how successful the SwedenDemocrats will be when they try to establish the same track in Sweden.

- Concern about Islamization has not been very strong in Sweden. - No one has detonated a car-bomb in Stockholm shouting "Jihad!", says islamologist Jonas Otterbeck.- - - - -Jonas Otterbeck, PhD, is Assistant Professor International Migration and Ethnic Relations, Malmö University, Sweden. He has done research on Muslim discourses on Islam in Sweden and on the situation of Muslim pupils in public school. Presently he is investigating Islamophobia in Sweden, Young adult Muslims understanding of Islam and the attitudes of Lebanese and Egyptian Muslim scholars to popular music. Otterbeck completed his Ph.D. in Islamic Studies in 2000. The dissertation is published in Swedish with the title Islam på svenska. Tidskriften Salaam och islams globalisering. (Islam in Swedish: The Journal Salaam and the Globalization of Islam. (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International). He has written several English articles published in journals and books. -- Jonas Otterbeck; Sektionen för islamologi, Allhegona kyrkogata 8, 223 62 LUND, tel: 046 - 10 43 33; fax: 046 - 10 44 26 e-mail: Jonas.Otterbeck@teol.lu.se

Great post!... Finding a defensive-strategy to the "death by thousand cuts" is surely THE most important task at hand. And as your score table shows, the current "pretending-it-doesn´t-hurt" counter-measure is surely the most helpless response of all.

As far as I know, the muslim heaven is divided into ever higher levels of bliss, which might explain why this strategy is so succesful among muslims. Every single victory proving that "allah is greater" might uplift the believer to a new cellestial level, differing as much from the earlier as heaven differs from the earth. Economic punishments will only have a moderating effect on this motivational structure.thus, it might be fruitful to find counter-measures retro-fitted to the religious beliefs driving the incremental jihad. Here, one of the main weaknesses of islam in my oppinion, is the reciprocal relation between Jihad and Dawa. Good jihad is simply bad Dawa, and vice-versa. In earlier times this disadvantage, wasn´t that crucial, but in the information age, it surely will be. Muslims are trying their best to disguise their jihad, posing as "opressed minority", "truthers" "communists" "anti-imperialists" "victims" etc. because they know, that there is a price to be paid in Dawa, if the lies following a jihadi-advance are unsucesfull.

In a way this is what the counter-jihad or info-crusade is slowly achieving. Making them pay in Dawa what they gain through jihad.For this achievement I think the Kuffar deserves one more point. Since 911, islam has been dragged through the mud, and will never recover from this blow. Their scripture has been exposed as a fraud, and their history turned out to be shameful.For good and bad this destruction of islamic Dawa makes jihad the only option left for the true believer.

This fight is NOT about terrorism, it is about immigration. Without getting rid of PC MC Leftist traitors first, we (the West) are goners-- killing the 'top brass' of Muslims will NOT work well, because new ones will take their places. Even Nuking the MME will not work if the PC MC traitors are NOT removed first, because after Mecca is nuked, PC MC Leftists will likely just hand over the West to Islamists as "the least we can do to prevent this 'CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY' from EVER happening again.

Concerning the collapse of the Welfare state, much of the money for loans comes from oil money from the MME. I used to think the Arabs were stupid for giving us money that they should know we can't pay back, but they are buying influence.

The MME will allow the welfare state to continue -- but will force cutbacks for the native elderly to pay for more 'Muslim migrant jizya" and keep their deluded PC MC clowns in power until they can take over.

It seems that Hal thinks that there will be a big xenophobic uprising sometime-- however, in 20 years, Whites will shink considerably in population, the Muslim fighting age population will explode, Muslims will be united, and Whites will be devided and hamstrung by PC MC propoganda

Baron,I have been very busy the last few days so I initially missed thia article. I first saw it in the post about the Dutch translation, so I got the chance to read it, and it's the kind of article that should be read by as many people as possbile. This is the Romanian translation.

Hi Baron, haven't been visiting for a while so did not see this post before. Great post, good summary, disturbing conclusion.

However, I'm sorry to say that imho Zenster (1) has got it all backwards. Priority #1 is not "maintain a consistent and tight focus upon the way that Islam alone drives all of these encroachments upon Western civilization", as the whole islamist agenda is a gigantic diversion planned by western governments and reluctantly, but at gunpoint, paid for by the taxpayer.

Especially the 'Islam alone' reference in Zenster's comment shows how successful this diversion tactic is: the focus is on Islam and the just outrage at its colonisation of the west, forgetting that the only reason that Islam's successful in doing so is that its aided and abetted by the western governments.

If governments would treat 'newcomers' and their conduct the same way they do natives, the problem would not be nearly the current size.

But pampering islamists and at the same time taxing up future generations and wasting lives in a diversion war which may help that other agenda, reduction of the world population, is a great way of destroying western civilization, values and standards of living, which is the Marxist agenda of the Frankfurter Schule and will help bring about the NWO, as the distracted people are calling for governments to do something and accepting more and more infringements on their freedom in the process, allowing, no, actively helping the State to gain more power.

The financial crisis, as a pretext to the nationalization of industry, the ObamaCare agenda, they're all about spending unimaginable sums of non-existing money, building a massive debt for future generations and diminishing the value of the dollar and, as a consequence of exporting the crisis elsewhere, other currencies, plummeting lots of people into poverty.

All those people will again turn to the State for help. If desperation is great enough, Civil War II will break out along the lines of natives versus the islamists and possibly Mexicans, i.e. 'aliens', allowing the State to declare the State of Emergency and seizing absolute power. The FEMA camps are ready.

So I'm afraid I have to agree with Fjordman here that "This is not coincidental. It is planned and highly organized."

R. Hartman: I'm sorry to say that imho Zenster (1) has got it all backwards. Priority #1 is not "maintain a consistent and tight focus upon the way that Islam alone drives all of these encroachments upon Western civilization", as the whole islamist agenda is a gigantic diversion planned by western governments and reluctantly, but at gunpoint, paid for by the taxpayer.

Especially the 'Islam alone' reference in Zenster's comment shows how successful this diversion tactic is: the focus is on Islam and the just outrage at its colonisation of the west, forgetting that the only reason that Islam's successful in doing so is that its aided and abetted by the western governments.

I invite you to start a civil war in the West pitting whatever conservative elements against its liberal "useful idiots". Then see whether Islam obtains an even stronger foothold while we go at each others' throats.

Yes, there must come a time when these socialist maroons get their comeuppance. However, if the West wishes to survive, it had best set about decapitating Islam's jihadist aristocracy FIRST before it diverts too much energy into cleaning its own house.

There are people whose entire lives are dedicated to detonating nuclear weapons in America or Europe and we'd best focus on those monster raving loons before distracting ourselves with any sort of internecine squabbling.

Zenster: the civil war will not be waged against the socialists, the 'liberal "useful idiots"', as everyone will turn to them for 'protection'; it will be against the 'newcomers' the hate for which is fueled daily by those same socialists through their discriminative agendas.

As the 'newcomers' undoubtedly will be armed (in a disarmed society only the criminals have arms) and financially supported by oil money, while the natives will lack any form of weaponry and will not be supported by their governments, it will not be a pretty picture, despite the difference in numbers.

And because the 'newcomers' are 'poor', criminal and uneducated (school-dropouts) they have little to lose and much to gain, quite opposite from the average westerner, who has lots and lots to lose, and little to gain. Well, they should gain their freedom, but that's proven to be a surprisingly undervalued commodity lately, so I won't hold my breath.

Even in the US with its 2nd amendment, things have already developed to, or possibly even past, the point of no return, for the same reason. Even while Obama's socialist steamroller agenda gets more obvious by the day, the average American refuses to take up his rightfully owned arms and defend his freedom, as he's likely to lose home and wealth in the process, and lately his freedom in a FEMA camp.

Apart from America and Switzerland, most of the 'civilized' world is disarmed and untrained. Our governments and army's are supposed to protect us; that's what we pay them for; it is their prime excuse for existing. The people have no chance at successfully "decapitating Islam's jihadist aristocracy". For one, "we" are too civilized.

So as long as governments are not prepared to fulfill their primary duty, there's only one option: replace them by a government that will. The non-aggression option is not likely to achieve that soon, and since most people are blind to the real role of the State, sufficient support cannot be mobilized.

As I (and Fjordman) said before: this is very well planned.

As far as nuclear Iran goes: I sort of suspect/hope that Israël is not going to wait until it's factually nuked before taking those installations out. While Obama is sweet-talking the jihadists and pressurizing Israël to do the same, I would be very surprised if Israël caves in to that pressure. If only because it could wipe them off the face of the earth.

It's not "internecine squabbling"; it's a major difference in situation assessment.